‘Unlike other professions the arts occupy a special, anomalous position in our society. Practitioners aren’t licensed, its members are entirely self-declared and self anointed, lacking any visible signs of status.’

This quote states that as an artist you can not receive a title, as you might in an industry like medicine (i.e.Dr). There is therefore no hierarchy within the arts as there is within most other industries. You also don’t require any credentials to be an artist as you might with other jobs, a degree is not obligatory. As a result anyone can be an artist meaning no clear sense of status exists within the arts.

Through discussing the artist's status, this quote places the artist or illustrator within society, at the bottom of the social ladder. This quote also uses some interesting words like ‘anomolous’ suggesting that the arts don’t fit within the norms of society, they are difficult to place. ‘Practitioners’ is also an interesting word, one which refers to anyone engaged with an art, discipline or profession. It then doesn’t make sense to me, when it says ‘a practitioner doesn’t need a licence’, as a Dentist for example is a practitioner and they need a licence. This is unless they are referring to a practitioner of the arts. 

When it uses the words ‘self-declared' and 'self anointed’ is it saying that anyone can do it as you are not selected? As within any other profession, lots of artists have degrees. In order to get onto an art degree you need to be selected. Many place in industry, such as design companies only higher people with a degree and professional experience. Therefore not just any ‘self declared’ artist can forge a living in the industry and therefore maintain their status as an artist.

‘Status’ as also a term which is difficult to pin down. Can an artist’s status not be found in the quality of their work and their success, rather than in weather on not they have a title? Defining it like this is totally un-universal as titles and hierachys within different companies are totally incomparable. Does an artist with a 2.1 degree in the arts not have the same status as someone with a 2.1 in a business degree. 

If we take Andy Warhol’s ‘Campbell's Soup Cans’ as an example, a piece which both raises our awareness to and challenges the consumerist nature of society in contemporary America. As a widely known artist with the power to comment upon and challenge society and have their message so widely received, does Warhol not have status? Is power not a ‘vidible sign of status’?

Michelangelo’s David very much portrays the artist’s status in a traditional sense. This is not only in terms of its grander reflected in the artistry and the complex subject matter (both things which reflected an artist of high status in the Renaissance period). But it also has significance on a political ground. It became a symbol for Florence (the underdog), staring to the North to ward off the enemy (the Mediccis). Surely an artist who has the power to say so much within their work is of status?